Does the news of the next AC prove that this game
was kind of a let down?

Obviously by now the talk of the next AC game is old news, we've been told that we're getting a new setting and character and it's pretty much been left at that for now.

But does this sudden departure from Conner and colonial America prove that even Ubisoft is aware that AC3 was fairly lackluster and overall one of the weaker entires in the series? AC2 was met with overall praise and used such a great character, time period and atmosphere that it was able to create several sequels that further fleshed out the character and his story. We got 2 full sequels, not to mention various other things such as handheld games, books, a short movie, etc.

Conner meanwhile (who could really do with some more time to develop as a character) hasn't been so positively recieved and so it looks like that rather than try to work with and develop him, Ubisoft would rather wipe the slate clean and move on to something else.

I'm interested to hear other peoples thoughts on this. Will you be glad to see the back of Conner? Do you wish he'd gotten a sequal? Will you miss the frontier or are you itching for something new?---PSN: GamingGuru1992(UK gamer)

Another one could be that Ubisoft wasn't happy with the way the Ezio trilogy went, story wise, gameplay wise, feedback wise, whatever. And that they dont want to repeat that process with a new character, even if the community liked him or not.

Another one would be that there is a system to the way they release games, something like this (not included handheld games):

Another one could be, that the reason "Assassin's Creed 3" took so 'long', and we got AC:B and AC:R, was because of the development of the AnvilNext engine. Now that we have it, its easier for Ubisoft to create and release new games in a shorter amount of time.

Or that they want the Assassin's Creed story to focus more on the Assassins as a whole or a group in general, instead of laying the focus down onto a single character for mutiple games (like they did with Ezio).And i could go on with this..

Saying its AC3's fault that a new game with a new setting and character is going to be released, or Connor's fault as a character in general doesn't sound right, when there are so many other reasons why things are turning out the way they are. Numbers and sales alone dont decide the marketing plan for a company (RE series, FF13)---"If Lee Harvey Oswald didn't quickscope then I'm not quickscoping."PSN: sgt_cumalot5713

Also, I believe people (not just gamers) are more inclined to complain and argue over something they disliked versus praise and defend something they enjoyed. I for one really liked AC3, and I really enjoyed Connor's character as I'm sure many others did. AC3 was by no means the "terrible game" people make it out to be.

I'm also sure a sequel to Connor's story would sell very well also, it's just that it wouldn't really make much sense with the next-gen being "right around the corner" and Desmond being...you know, dead lol.

Interesting comments. I for one do like both AC3 and Conner, but feel that they were definately lacking compared to most of the series.

It's a good point about having a new assassin on the next generation of consoles, that compltely slipped my mind but you're right.

I still feel though that ubisoft doesn't have as much faith in their work this time though, they aren't exactly pushing it anymore (aside from the washington dlc) and seem eager to brush over it and move on. A shame since it took so much time and effort and they did a lot of things right (like the naval combat).---PSN: GamingGuru1992(UK gamer)

You realize that when a new game in a series is being released every year, they already start work on the next one, especially storyline, before the previous one releases right?---My latest conquest, Lambo Gallardo- http://s13.beta.photobucket.com/user/ciscrack/media/scan.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0

Even before AC3 was released, they said that more Connor sequels depends on people's reception to him; for the most part people here on GameFAQs seemed to be neutral towards him, with a vocal minority hating him.

The likelihood is that they had two separate games in pre-production stages - a hypothetical Connor sequel, and a backup plan in case Connor's reception was mixed or went badly. After scouring boards like this one for a couple months, they probably decided to put plans for Connor on the back-burner.---Behold the angry wizard putt-putt-putting away.

Another one could be that Ubisoft wasn't happy with the way the Ezio trilogy went, story wise, gameplay wise, feedback wise, whatever. And that they dont want to repeat that process with a new character, even if the community liked him or not.

Another one would be that there is a system to the way they release games, something like this (not included handheld games):

Except that Altair got three games, technically four with his playable memories in Revelations.---I am a dedicated member of the "Walter Sullivan Is Bad-Ass" group!!!I am the true originator of the Cookie Demon theory on the SH2 and 3 boards.